What stood out in this game was how triumphant traditional methods were. Kumar Sangakkara played a classical innings. He was watchful against England's new ball bowlers and then opened out against the part timers Joe Root (a batsman who is picked for his ability to bowl), James Tredwell (a journeyman off spinner with a first class average of 36) and Ravi Bopara, (a journeyman all rounder who can bat and bit and bowl a bit and did both with varying fortune at Lord's). Sangakkara took 14 in 24 balls from Anderson and Gurney. He played out 14 of those 24 balls for no run and took 8 singles from the other 10. He took a boundary off Gurney in the 40th over. Against Root and Bopara, Sangakkara took 48 in 28 balls. He scored off 23 out of those 28 balls. Against Jordon and Tredwell, he took 50 in 52. His boundaries were driven down the ground. 12 of his 14 boundaries were hit in front of square. Only 1 was a false shot, an outside edge off Ravi Bopara.
England's best player on the day showed the same characteristics. Jos Butler put on an exhibition of cover driving aided by an uncharacteristic disconnect between the line Nuwan Kulasekara chose to bowl and the field he was given. One more than one occasion, Butler improvised, stepping away from the stumps effortlessly lofting the ball over cover. As with Sangakkara, Butler's boundaries behind square on the leg side came when the bowler strayed on to his pads, and not because he tried to play across the line from the stumps.
The luckiest batsman on the day was Ravi Bopara. He was all at sea against Ajantha Mendis. Bopara wasn't reading Mendis, and consequently didn't know which way the ball was going to turn after pitching. He did what most batsmen do when faced with this predicament - he swept, usually from the stumps. After the match, Sir Ian Botham remarked that Bopara was unlucky to get out the way he did. Bopara top edged a sweep shot to be caught by short fine leg off Mendis. Bopara was lucky to survive as much as he did and was lucky that he connected as well as he did up until that point. It was Mendis who was unlucky to concede 17 off 13 balls to Bopara. Mendis lost his length a couple of times and Bopara made him pay. But Bopara tried to sweep 5 times in 13 balls and connected once. Had he been able to read Mendis from the hand, he might have scored more than just 1 run on the off side against Sri Lanka's ace spinner whose variation turns away from the right hander. To say that Bopara was unlucky to be dismissed the way he was is like saying a batsman is unlucky to be ought caught at second slip even though he consistently swings at balls outside off stump. Cricinfo's Control measure records that Bopara was in control (defined as the ball going where the batsman intended it to go) 64% of the time against Mendis. By contrast, the figures for Sangakkara and Butler's innings are 90% and 87% respectively.
England's number 3, 4 and 6 fell reverse sweeping in the 24th over, playing across the line from the stumps against a seamer in the 28th and sweeping from the stumps in the 45th. England were outclassed with both bat and ball in this game. Jos Butler's brilliance made it a much closer game than it should have been and drew the only major tactical error that Sri Lanka made - the field setting to Nuwan Kulasekara. Butler took 46 runs in 20 balls from Kulasekara, including 3 sixers. 33 of these 46 runs came on the off side. 46 out of his 68 boundary runs came of the off side too. 42 came in front of square on the off side.
The shot selection from England's 3 and 4 batsmen (shots that have probably been coached into their game in recent years) was just one problem. The more serious problem was England's bowling line up. They chose to field after winning the toss because the wicket had a tinge of green (in Cook's words), and yet, had Joe Root bowling first change. England didn't get their 2nd wicket until the 36th over. In those 36 overs, James Tredwell bowled nearly his full quota. James Tredwell's spell was a fine example of what might be termed "offensive indifference" from Sangakkara and Dilshan. They were happy to take 4 an over off him, because they were getting Bopara and Root (and Jordan to a lesser extent) at the other end.
Too many captains use too many bowlers without any serious interest in getting batsmen out in ODI cricket. It makes for a boring game. The classical game, in which batsmen hit hard and straight and late, and in which bowlers try to get batsmen out triumphed at Lord's. Lasith Malinga may have an unorthodox action, but his tactical game is as old as cricket itself. He attacks the stumps and relies on getting LBWs and bowleds.
Perhaps cricket will do well to incentivize wicket taking in ODI cricket. The way to do it would be to make over quotas contingent on wicket taking. Here is one idea. Currently, every bowler gets to bowl a maximum of 10 overs in a 50 over game. What if this was made contingent on taking wickets?
If a bowler does not take a wicket in his first 8 overs, he gets to bowl only 8 overs.
If a bowler takes 1 wicket in his first 8 overs, he gets to bowl 11 overs.
If a bowler takes 2 wickets in his first 8 overs, he gets to bowl 13 overs.
If a bowler takes 3 or more wickets, he gets to bowl 15 overs in an innings.
Will this incentivize captains to try and chase wickets in the middle overs? Will it provide incentives teams to pick good bowlers and good batsmen instead of bits and pieces men who are then called "all-rounders"? I think it will.
Cricket is a better game when bowlers are trying to get batsmen out, and batsmen counter such bowlers in classic fashion like Kumar Sangakkara did at Lord's on the last day of May, 2014.
Here's hoping..